Dave Jones wrote: > > All of our inserts and updates to this database are wrapped in > <cftransaction></cftransaction> tags (due to multiple tables > involved in the transactions). We are not explicitly issuing any > commits or rollbacks. > > My questions are: > 1) Given our use of <cftransaction>, is it possible that CF is > leaving transactions uncommited? I thought CF handled all of that > behind the scenes.
Unlikely. IIRC, every open transaction requires an open connection to the database. So for you to have 2000 uncommitted transactions, requires 2000 connections. Not many shared hosts have sufficient licenses to do that. > 2b) And if CF was not committing transactions, wouldn't these > transactions not appear in the database? Is the fact that all of > our transactions appear in the 'database' (that virtual > collection of db, logs and cache) indicate that the transactions > are in fact getting committed? That depends on the isolation level of the transactions. Since MS SQL Server uses the default level "read committed", so you can indeed only see changes after a commit (or from inside the transaction that makes the changes). Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
